瀏覽器不支援
chrome 使用chrome瀏覽器,輕鬆學英文。

如有任何問題,歡迎聯絡我們

下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
免費註冊
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
Email 帳號
密碼請填入 6 位數以上密碼
已經有帳號了?
忘記密碼
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
您的 Email
請輸入您註冊時填寫的 Email,
我們將會寄送設定新密碼的連結給您。
寄信了!請到信箱打開密碼連結信
密碼信已寄至
沒有收到信嗎? 點這裡重寄一次
如果您尚未收到信,請前往垃圾郵件查看,謝謝!

恭喜您註冊成功!

查看會員功能

註冊未完成

《HOPE English 希平方》服務條款關於個人資料收集與使用之規定

隱私權政策
上次更新日期:2014-12-30

希平方 為一英文學習平台,我們每天固定上傳優質且豐富的影片內容,讓您不但能以有趣的方式學習英文,還能增加內涵,豐富知識。我們非常注重您的隱私,以下說明為當您使用我們平台時,我們如何收集、使用、揭露、轉移及儲存你的資料。請您花一些時間熟讀我們的隱私權做法,我們歡迎您的任何疑問或意見,提供我們將產品、服務、內容、廣告做得更好。

本政策涵蓋的內容包括:希平方 如何處理蒐集或收到的個人資料。
本隱私權保護政策只適用於: 希平方 平台,不適用於非 希平方 平台所有或控制的公司,也不適用於非 希平方 僱用或管理之人。

個人資料的收集與使用
當您註冊 希平方 平台時,我們會詢問您姓名、電子郵件、出生日期、職位、行業及個人興趣等資料。在您註冊完 希平方 帳號並登入我們的服務後,我們就能辨認您的身分,讓您使用更完整的服務,或參加相關宣傳、優惠及贈獎活動。希平方 也可能從商業夥伴或其他公司處取得您的個人資料,並將這些資料與 希平方 所擁有的您的個人資料相結合。

我們所收集的個人資料, 將用於通知您有關 希平方 最新產品公告、軟體更新,以及即將發生的事件,也可用以協助改進我們的服務。

我們也可能使用個人資料為內部用途。例如:稽核、資料分析、研究等,以改進 希平方公司 產品、服務及客戶溝通。

瀏覽資料的收集與使用
希平方 自動接收並記錄您電腦和瀏覽器上的資料,包括 IP 位址、希平方 cookie 中的資料、軟體和硬體屬性以及您瀏覽的網頁紀錄。

隱私權政策修訂
我們會不定時修正與變更《隱私權政策》,不會在未經您明確同意的情況下,縮減本《隱私權政策》賦予您的權利。隱私權政策變更時一律會在本頁發佈;如果屬於重大變更,我們會提供更明顯的通知 (包括某些服務會以電子郵件通知隱私權政策的變更)。我們還會將本《隱私權政策》的舊版加以封存,方便您回顧。

服務條款
歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
上次更新日期:2013-09-09

歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
感謝您使用我們的產品和服務(以下簡稱「本服務」),本服務是由 希平方 所提供。
本服務條款訂立的目的,是為了保護會員以及所有使用者(以下稱會員)的權益,並構成會員與本服務提供者之間的契約,在使用者完成註冊手續前,應詳細閱讀本服務條款之全部條文,一旦您按下「註冊」按鈕,即表示您已知悉、並完全同意本服務條款的所有約定。如您是法律上之無行為能力人或限制行為能力人(如未滿二十歲之未成年人),則您在加入會員前,請將本服務條款交由您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)閱讀,並得到其同意,您才可註冊及使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務。當您開始使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務時,則表示您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)已經閱讀、了解並同意本服務條款。 我們可能會修改本條款或適用於本服務之任何額外條款,以(例如)反映法律之變更或本服務之變動。您應定期查閱本條款內容。這些條款如有修訂,我們會在本網頁發佈通知。變更不會回溯適用,並將於公布變更起十四天或更長時間後方始生效。不過,針對本服務新功能的變更,或基於法律理由而為之變更,將立即生效。如果您不同意本服務之修訂條款,則請停止使用該本服務。

第三人網站的連結 本服務或協力廠商可能會提供連結至其他網站或網路資源的連結。您可能會因此連結至其他業者經營的網站,但不表示希平方與該等業者有任何關係。其他業者經營的網站均由各該業者自行負責,不屬希平方控制及負責範圍之內。

兒童及青少年之保護 兒童及青少年上網已經成為無可避免之趨勢,使用網際網路獲取知識更可以培養子女的成熟度與競爭能力。然而網路上的確存有不適宜兒童及青少年接受的訊息,例如色情與暴力的訊息,兒童及青少年有可能因此受到心靈與肉體上的傷害。因此,為確保兒童及青少年使用網路的安全,並避免隱私權受到侵犯,家長(或監護人)應先檢閱各該網站是否有保護個人資料的「隱私權政策」,再決定是否同意提出相關的個人資料;並應持續叮嚀兒童及青少年不可洩漏自己或家人的任何資料(包括姓名、地址、電話、電子郵件信箱、照片、信用卡號等)給任何人。

為了維護 希平方 網站安全,我們需要您的協助:

您承諾絕不為任何非法目的或以任何非法方式使用本服務,並承諾遵守中華民國相關法規及一切使用網際網路之國際慣例。您若係中華民國以外之使用者,並同意遵守所屬國家或地域之法令。您同意並保證不得利用本服務從事侵害他人權益或違法之行為,包括但不限於:
A. 侵害他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利;
B. 違反依法律或契約所應負之保密義務;
C. 冒用他人名義使用本服務;
D. 上載、張貼、傳輸或散佈任何含有電腦病毒或任何對電腦軟、硬體產生中斷、破壞或限制功能之程式碼之資料;
E. 干擾或中斷本服務或伺服器或連結本服務之網路,或不遵守連結至本服務之相關需求、程序、政策或規則等,包括但不限於:使用任何設備、軟體或刻意規避看 希平方 - 看 YouTube 學英文 之排除自動搜尋之標頭 (robot exclusion headers);

服務中斷或暫停
本公司將以合理之方式及技術,維護會員服務之正常運作,但有時仍會有無法預期的因素導致服務中斷或故障等現象,可能將造成您使用上的不便、資料喪失、錯誤、遭人篡改或其他經濟上損失等情形。建議您於使用本服務時宜自行採取防護措施。 希平方 對於您因使用(或無法使用)本服務而造成的損害,除故意或重大過失外,不負任何賠償責任。

版權宣告
上次更新日期:2013-09-16

希平方 內所有資料之著作權、所有權與智慧財產權,包括翻譯內容、程式與軟體均為 希平方 所有,須經希平方同意合法才得以使用。
希平方歡迎你分享網站連結、單字、片語、佳句,使用時須標明出處,並遵守下列原則:

  • 禁止用於獲取個人或團體利益,或從事未經 希平方 事前授權的商業行為
  • 禁止用於政黨或政治宣傳,或暗示有支持某位候選人
  • 禁止用於非希平方認可的產品或政策建議
  • 禁止公佈或傳送任何誹謗、侮辱、具威脅性、攻擊性、不雅、猥褻、不實、色情、暴力、違反公共秩序或善良風俗或其他不法之文字、圖片或任何形式的檔案
  • 禁止侵害或毀損希平方或他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利、違反法律或契約所應付支保密義務
  • 嚴禁謊稱希平方辦公室、職員、代理人或發言人的言論背書,或作為募款的用途

網站連結
歡迎您分享 希平方 網站連結,與您的朋友一起學習英文。

抱歉傳送失敗!

不明原因問題造成傳送失敗,請儘速與我們聯繫!

「Michael Hendryx:山巔移除採礦產業的驚人風險--以及必須終結的原因」- The Shocking Danger of Mountaintop Removal—and Why It Must End


框選或點兩下字幕可以直接查字典喔!

Let's say that you wanted to conduct an experiment. In this experiment, you randomly assign people to live in blasting zones or in control locations without explosives going off over their heads. They live in the community for years, just downwind and downstream from sites where tons of explosives are used almost daily. And millions of gallons of water contaminated. With random assignment, you could carefully study the long-term health effects of living in these blasting communities without a bunch of annoying confounders and covariates. Random assignment does wonders.

That would be a rigorous, powerful scientific inquiry into the effects of these environmental exposures. Of course, such a study could never be done. Most scientists wouldn't have the stomach for it. The institutional review board would never approve it; it would never pass human subjects review, because it would be unethical, immoral. And yet in effect, it is happening right now. In my mind, this prompts some questions. What is the ethical obligation of the scientists who believes populations are in danger? How much evidence is enough to be confident of our conclusions? Where is the line between scientific certainty and the need to act?

The unplanned experiment that is happening right now is called mountaintop removal. The abbreviation for it is MTR. It is a form of surface coal mining that takes place in Appalachia, here in the United States. MTR occurs in four states: Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. Over 1.2 million acres have been mined in this way. This is an area about the size of Delaware but it is spread over a footprint as large as Vermont and New Hampshire combined. The process involves clear-cutting ancient Appalachian forest, home to some of the richest biodiversity on the planet. The trees are typically burned or dumped into adjacent valleys. Then, to reach the buried coal seams, explosives are used to remove up to 800 feet of mountain elevation. Over 1,500 tons of explosives are used for coal mining in West Virginia alone. Every day.

Rock and soil debris is dumped over the valley sides where it permanently buries headwater streams. So far, over 500 mountains have been destroyed. About 2,000 miles of streams have been permanently buried. Water emerging from the base of the valley fills is highly contaminated and remains contaminated for decades. The coal then has to be chemically treated, crushed and washed before it can be transported to power plants and burned. This cleaning takes place on-site. The process produces more air pollution and contaminates billions of gallons of water with metals, sulfates, cleaning chemicals and other impurities. All of this to produce three percent of US electricity demand—only three percent of US electricity demand.

As you can appreciate, this prompts all sorts of other questions. What are the health impacts of mountaintop-removal mining? There are over a million people who live in counties where MTR takes place and millions more downstream and downwind. What has been the response of industry and government when these issues are documented? And again, what is the ethical obligation of science when faced with this disturbing situation?

I began to research this issue in 2006. I had just taken a job at West Virginia University. Before then, I hadn't done any research related to coal. But I started to hear stories from people who lived in these mining communities. They said that the water they drank was not clean, that the air they breathed was polluted. They would tell me about their own illnesses or illnesses in their family. They were worried about how common cancer was in their neighborhoods. I met with many people in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to listen to those stories and hear their concerns. I searched the scientific literature and was surprised to learn that nothing had been published on the public health effects of coal mining in the United States. Let me say that again—nothing had been published on the public health effects of coal mining in the US.

So I thought, "I can make a new contribution, no matter what I find, to either confirm these concerns or to alleviate them." I had no personal or organizational agenda. Many of my colleagues initially were skeptical that there would be any link between public health and mining. They predicted that the health problems could be explained by poverty or by lifestyle issues, like smoking and obesity. When I started, I thought maybe they would be right. We started by analyzing existing databases that allowed us to link population health to mining activity and to control statistically for age, sex, race, smoking, obesity, poverty, education, health insurance and others we could measure. We found evidence that confirmed the concerns of the residents, and we started to publish our findings.

As a very brief summary, we found that people who live where mountaintop removal takes place have significantly higher levels of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and chronic lung disease like COPD. Death rates from cancer are significantly elevated, especially for lung cancer. We've seen evidence for higher rates of birth defects and for babies born at low birth weight. The difference in total mortality equates to about 1,200 excess deaths every year in MTR areas, controlling for other risks. Twelve hundred excess deaths every year. Not only are death rates higher, but they increase as the levels of mining go up in a dose-response manner. Next, we started to conduct community door-to-door health surveys. We surveyed people living within a few miles of MTR versus similar rural communities without mining. Survey results show higher levels of personal and family illness, self-reported health status is poorer, and illness symptoms across a broad spectrum are more common.

These studies are only associational. We all know that correlation does not prove causation. These studies did not include data on the actual environmental conditions in mining communities. So we started to collect and report on that. We found that violations of public drinking-water standards are seven times more common in MTR areas versus non-mining areas. We collected air samples and found that particulate matter is elevated in mining communities, especially in the ultra-fine range. The dust in mining communities contains a complex mixture, but includes high levels of silica, a known lung carcinogen, and potentially harmful organic compounds. We used the dust in laboratory experiments and found that it induced cardiovascular dysfunction in rats. The dust also promoted the development of lung cancer in human in vitro lung cells. This is just a quick summary of some of our studies.

The coal industry does not like what we have to say. Neither does the government in coal country. Just like the tobacco industry paid for research to defend the safety of smoking, so the coal industry has tried to do the same by paying people to write papers claiming that MTR is safe. Lawyers have sent me harassing demands under the Freedom of Information Act, eventually denied by the courts. I'd been attacked at public testimony at a Congressional hearing by a congressman with ties to the energy industry. One governor has publicly declared that he refuses to read the research. And after a meeting with a member of Congress, in which I specifically shared my research, I later heard that representative say they knew nothing about it.

I worked with scientists at the US Geological Survey on environmental sampling for more than two years. And just as they were starting to publish their findings, they were suddenly instructed by their superiors to stop work on this project. In August of this year, the National Academy of Sciences was suddenly instructed by the federal government to stop their independent review of the public health consequences of surface mining. These actions are politically motivated, in my view.

But there is opposition from researchers, too. At conferences or meetings, they express skepticism. OK, we are all taught, as scientists, to be skeptical. They ask, "What about this possible explanation?" "Have you considered that alternative interpretation?" They wonder, "There must be some confounder that we missed. Some other variable we haven't accounted for." "An in vitro study, what does that prove?" "A rat study—how do we know the same effects would be found in people?" Maybe so. Technically, you have to acknowledge that they could be right, but you know, maybe these health problems are not the result of some unmeasured confound. Maybe they result from blowing up mountains over people's heads.

There can always be doubt, if doubt is what you seek. Because we can never do that defining experiment. Any next study must always be associational. So perhaps you can understand why I've started to wonder, how much evidence is enough? I've published over 30 papers on this topic so far. Along with my coauthors, other researchers have added to the evidence, yet government doesn't want to listen, and the industry says it's only correlational. They say Appalachians have lifestyle issues. As though it had never occurred to us to control for smoking or obesity or poverty or education or health insurance. We controlled for all of those and more.

There comes a point where we don't need more research, where we can't ask people to be unwilling research subjects so we can do the next study. As scientists, we follow the data wherever it goes, but sometimes data can only take us so far and we have to decide, as thinking, feeling human beings, what it means and when it is time to act. I think that is true, not only for MTR but for other situations where evidence is strong and concerning but imperfect. And when failing to act if you're wrong means people's lives.

It may seem strange that there is any controversy over the health effects of mountaintop-removal mining. But somehow, this subject has wound up in a scientific and political twilight zone alongside the debate over climate change or the argument years ago about whether or not smoking caused cancer. In this twilight zone, much of the data seems to point to one conclusion. But the economics or the politics or the prevailing public view insist on the opposite conclusion. When you're a scientist and you think you have a valid insight where the health of entire populations is at stake but you find yourself trapped in this twilight zone of denial and disbelief, what is your moral and ethical obligation?

Obviously, scientists are responsible for telling the truth as they see it, based on evidence. Simply stated, we have an obligation to stand up for the data. It can be extremely frustrating to wait around for public opinion or political consensus to catch up to the scientific understanding. But the more controversial the subject and the more frustrating the debate, the more critical it is for scientists to preserve our objectivity and our reputation for integrity. Because integrity is the coin of the realm in scientific and public policy debate.

In the long run, our reputation for integrity is the most powerful tool that we have, even more powerful than the data itself. Without an acknowledged integrity on the part of scientists, no amount of data will ever convince people to believe painful or difficult truths. But when we cultivate and guard our reputation for integrity, when we patiently stand up for the data and keep doing the studies and keep calmly bringing the results to the public, that's when we have our greatest impact.

Eventually, scientific truth does and will win out. How many lives will be lost while we wait? Too many already. But prevail we will.

Thank you.

播放本句

登入使用學習功能

使用Email登入

HOPE English 播放器使用小提示

  • 功能簡介

    單句重覆、上一句、下一句:顧名思義,以句子為單位重覆播放,單句重覆鍵顯示橘色時為重覆播放狀態;顯示灰色時為正常播放狀態。按上一句鍵、下一句鍵時就會自動重覆播放該句。
    收錄佳句:點擊可增減想收藏的句子。

    中、英文字幕開關:中、英文字幕按鍵為綠色為開啟,灰色為關閉。鼓勵大家搞懂每一句的內容以後,關上字幕聽聽看,會發現自己好像在聽中文說故事一樣,會很有成就感喔!
    收錄單字:用滑鼠框選英文單字可以收藏不會的單字。
  • 分享
    如果您覺得本篇短片很有趣或很喜歡,在短片結束時有分享連結,可以分享給朋友一同欣賞,一起看YouTube學英文!

    或是您有收錄很優秀的句子時,也可以分享佳句給大家,一同看佳句學英文!